On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dan, Ron, John, el al -- > The question of Free Will has come up again, and the Q&A postings of the > last two days demonstrate the ambiguity of the MoQ on this seminal issue. > Not the least of the problem is an attempt to make "Quality" its major > factor. For example, on Tuesday John Carl asked Dan: > >> How can you have Quality if you have no choice? >> Values are only meaningful when there is freedom to choose, >> otherwise they don't equate to any kind of "value". If I can >> choose between A and B, then I have to think about which >> has more quality. But if I have no choice, if I just have A, >> then I don't think about the quality of A at all. If somebody >> believes there is no freedom in the universe, then they'd also >> have to conclude that there is no quality either. I choose to >> believe differently. > > Dan responded: >> >> We both have a choice and have no choice, at the same time. >> That is what the MOQ is telling us. To cling to the notion that >> only free will offers quality is to fundamentally misunderstand >> the nature of experience, which is what I told Ham last time we spoke. > > At 10:24 AM on Wednesday, Ron (X Acto) asked Dan: > >> "Free will" is natural selection. Isn't it?. > > Dan's response: >> >> Natural selection pertains to the biological level. There is no choice >> involved. The fittest survive to pass on those survival traits while >> the less fit hit an evolutionary dead end. At the biological level, >> the environment seems to determine the fittest. For example, global >> warming is threatening many species not able to adapt. No choice is >> involved. > > In an attempt to refute Ron's assertion that "Quality is what [RMP] meant > when he stated that atoms may be viewed as preferring their bonds, that > "free will" is exercised on the inorganic level as well," Dan provided what > is presumably a "definitive" quote (from LILA) on this issue: > > "A third puzzle illuminated by the Metaphysics of Quality is the > ancient 'free will vs. determinism controversy.' Determinism is the > philosophic doctrine that man, like all other objects in the universe, > follows fixed scientific laws, and does so without ion. Free will is > the philosophic doctrine that man makes choices independent of the > atoms of his body. > > "In the Metaphysics of Quality this dilemma doesn't come up. To > the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality > it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic > Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free. > > "So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life, but everything, > is an ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of > reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've > done so because it's "better" and that this definition of "betterness" > -this beginning response to Dynamic Quality-is an elementary unit of > ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based." > > Before I comment further, can any one tell me what "ion" in the first > paragraph is supposed to mean? (I know ions as charged particles, but that > makes no sense in this context.)
Hi Ham Sorry for the error. I copied and pasted these quotes from my "searchable" LILA. Sometimes errors arise in the translation. The word "ion" should read "exception." I'll take more care in the future. Ham: Also, what was Pirsig inferring when he > called Free Will the "philosophic doctrine that man makes choices > independent of the atoms of his body"? How do ions and atoms factor in free > decision-making? Dan: Well, forget ions. What he's getting at is the materialistic doctine that free will arises from matter. >Ham: > My interpretation of this statement is that Free Will is an outmoded and > unnecessary concept inasmuch as "everything is an ethical activity" > automatically responding to "betterness". The author allows for "free > behavior" only in the sense that it follows an undefinable goal called DQ. I > don't see how that differs from the laws of Nature, nor do I understand how > being constrained to a predetermined goal can be construed as exercising > Free Will. > > Frankly, the rationale of these three paragraphs seems to argue that we > would be better off not having a mind of our own. In that way, the universe > could proceed in its prescribed course toward betterness without human > interference. Dan: In the MOQ, the universe and humans are not independent entities. >Ham: > If this is the best example of MoQ's guidance on morality and human freedom, > it leaves much to be desired as a life philosophy. Dan: To sum up a philosophy from a few paragraphs does a grave misjustice to that philosophy. Would you like it if someone did that to your philosophy? I really think you need to further investigate the MOQ. >Ham: > But, of course, that's only one man's opinion. Dan: That goes without saying. Thank you, Dan Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
